REStud Workflow (restud-workflow)
Overview
This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which one to use next, and in what order.
Default assumption: unless the user names a different venue, the manuscript targets The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) — a top-5 general-interest journal (OUP, for the Review of Economic Studies Ltd; founded 1933 to advance theoretical and applied economics equally, especially by younger economists). REStud prizes a clean, original contribution — a new model, a new identification strategy, or a striking new empirical fact — presented rigorously and economically. It is not a finance-only stack, not a theory-only stack, and not a working-paper repository.
REStud-specific anchors (carry these through every stage)
- Identity: founded 1933, theory and applied weighted equally; home of the REStud Tour (former May Meetings, annual since 1989) for promising young economists — calibrate ambition to that bar.
- Submission: Editorial Express portal, USD 250 fee (reduced USD 150 if every author is a student / within 6 years of PhD / in a low-or-middle-income economy; rate effective 1 June 2026), double-anonymous review, Harvard author-date references, JEL codes, ~45-page limit; editors desk-reject ~20–23% before refereeing.
- Replication: the Data Editor (Miklós Koren) runs an AEA DCAS pre-publication reproducibility check; packages deposit at Zenodo.
- Editors (2026): Joint Managing Editors include Jan De Loecker, Antonio Penta, Jakub Steiner (verify the full current roster).
When to Use
- The user asks "what should I work on next?"
- The user dumps a draft and you must decide where the bottleneck is
- The user is rotating between theory, empirics, writing, and revision and loses track of the stage
- A referee report has arrived and the work mode must switch from drafting to rebuttal
- The user is preparing a job-market paper for the REStud "May Meetings" / Tour pipeline and wants the manuscript at REStud standard
Routing Map
| Current symptom |
Next skill |
| Idea is fuzzy; the one-sentence contribution will not compress |
restud-topic-selection |
| Related-work positioning is thin; closest papers not confronted |
restud-literature-positioning |
| Empirical design is the bottleneck (DID / IV / RDD / RCT / structural) |
restud-identification |
| The paper is theory or has a model whose proofs need an online appendix |
restud-theory-model |
| Main results exist but referee-anticipating checks are missing or fragile |
restud-robustness |
| Tables are oversized / footnote-bloated; figures do not carry the result |
restud-tables-figures |
| Prose is bloated; abstract over length; contribution buried |
restud-writing-style |
| Preparing the data/code deposit or auditing reproducibility |
restud-replication-package |
| Want to anticipate who referees and what they will demand |
restud-referee-strategy |
| Final preflight before clicking submit (format, length, anonymity) |
restud-submission |
| A referee report / R&R arrived and a response letter is needed |
restud-rebuttal |
Default Sequence
For a typical REStud-track manuscript, prefer this order:
restud-topic-selection — fix the one-sentence original contribution before anything else
restud-literature-positioning — locate the contribution against the closest 3–5 papers
restud-identification — for empirical papers, stress-test the design; if it fails here, no later skill saves the paper
restud-theory-model — for theory papers (or empirical papers with a model), build the model and route proofs to the online appendix
restud-robustness — anticipate the checks the demanding median REStud referee will require
restud-tables-figures — finalize exhibits so each one carries a result
restud-writing-style — only now polish prose, abstract, and introduction
restud-replication-package — assemble the deposit while results are fresh in code
restud-referee-strategy — map the likely referee pool and pre-empt objections
restud-submission — final preflight: length, anonymity, format, files
restud-rebuttal — after review, revise the manuscript first, then write the letter
restud-identification and restud-theory-model are parallel branches: empirical papers lean on the first, theory papers on the second, and many REStud papers (theory-with-empirics) need both. restud-writing-style is a late polish — do not run it before the contribution and design are stable.
Decision Cues
If the user says...
- "I have data but no story" →
restud-topic-selection
- "My closest paper is in QJE 2022 and I don't know what I add" →
restud-literature-positioning
- "My DiD has staggered treatment and TWFE" →
restud-identification
- "My model has a proposition but no proof section" →
restud-theory-model
- "A referee will say the result is driven by X" →
restud-robustness
- "My table 3 has 14 columns" →
restud-tables-figures
- "My intro is 5 pages and buries the contribution" →
restud-writing-style
- "I got a conditional accept; I need the data deposit" →
restud-replication-package
- "Who is going to referee this and what will they want?" →
restud-referee-strategy
- "I'm submitting tomorrow" →
restud-submission
- "I got an R&R with three reports" →
restud-rebuttal
Differences vs. Other Top-5 Stacks
REStud overlaps heavily with AER / QJE / JPE / Econometrica in standards, but its center of gravity differs:
- vs AER: AER weights cross-subfield interest and policy salience; REStud equally welcomes a clean theoretical or methodological contribution with no policy hook, and is famously friendly to young scholars — the REStud Tour / May Meetings (annual since 1989) showcase graduating PhD job-market work.
- vs Econometrica: Econometrica tolerates very heavy formal machinery as the contribution itself; REStud wants the economics payoff of the theory to be legible.
- vs JPE: JPE has a price-theory / Chicago tilt; REStud is field-agnostic and European-rooted.
If the paper is finance-specific (JF / JFE / RFS) or theory so abstract it is really a math paper, a different stack fits better.
Anti-Patterns
- Polishing prose (
restud-writing-style) before the identification or model is stable
- Treating
restud-theory-model as optional for an empirical paper that has a model — REStud referees check that the model's assumptions map to the empirics
- Assembling the replication package only after acceptance — REStud's Data Editor (Miklós Koren) runs an AEA DCAS reproducibility check before publication (Zenodo deposit), so it is part of the production timeline, not an afterthought
- Writing the rebuttal against the old draft instead of the revised manuscript
- Skipping
restud-referee-strategy because "the design is obviously fine" — REStud referees are demanding and develop strong papers across rounds
Handoff Contract
Whenever this skill is invoked, end with:
NEXT SKILL: <restud-skill-name>
REASON: <one sentence>
INPUTS NEEDED: <artifacts the next skill needs>
Source: brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills → Review-of-Economic-Studies-Skills/skills/restud-workflow/SKILL.md
1---2name: restud-workflow3description: Use when deciding which restud-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing manuscript work from topic selection through rebuttal for a The Review of Economic Studies (REStud) manuscript. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.4---5
6
7# REStud Workflow (restud-workflow)
8
9## Overview
10
11This is the router. It does not replace any specialized skill — it tells you which one to use next, and in what order.
12
13Default assumption: unless the user names a different venue, the manuscript targets **The Review of Economic Studies (REStud)** — a top-5 general-interest journal (OUP, for the Review of Economic Studies Ltd; founded **1933** to advance **theoretical and applied** economics equally, especially by younger economists). REStud prizes a *clean, original contribution* — a new model, a new identification strategy, or a striking new empirical fact — presented rigorously and economically. It is not a finance-only stack, not a theory-only stack, and not a working-paper repository.
14
15## REStud-specific anchors (carry these through every stage)
16
17- **Identity:** founded 1933, theory and applied weighted equally; home of the **REStud Tour** (former May Meetings, annual since 1989) for promising young economists — calibrate ambition to that bar.
18- **Submission:** **Editorial Express** portal, **USD 250 fee** (reduced **USD 150** if every author is a student / within 6 years of PhD / in a low-or-middle-income economy; rate effective 1 June 2026), **double-anonymous** review, **Harvard author-date** references, JEL codes, **~45-page** limit; editors desk-reject ~20–23% before refereeing.
19- **Replication:** the **Data Editor (Miklós Koren)** runs an **AEA DCAS** pre-publication reproducibility check; packages deposit at **Zenodo**.
20- **Editors (2026):** Joint Managing Editors include Jan De Loecker, Antonio Penta, Jakub Steiner (verify the full current roster).
21
22## When to Use
23
24- The user asks "what should I work on next?"
25- The user dumps a draft and you must decide where the bottleneck is
26- The user is rotating between theory, empirics, writing, and revision and loses track of the stage
27- A referee report has arrived and the work mode must switch from drafting to rebuttal
28- The user is preparing a job-market paper for the REStud "May Meetings" / Tour pipeline and wants the manuscript at REStud standard
29
30## Routing Map
31
32| Current symptom | Next skill |
33|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
34| Idea is fuzzy; the one-sentence contribution will not compress | `restud-topic-selection` |
35| Related-work positioning is thin; closest papers not confronted | `restud-literature-positioning`|
36| Empirical design is the bottleneck (DID / IV / RDD / RCT / structural) | `restud-identification` |
37| The paper is theory or has a model whose proofs need an online appendix | `restud-theory-model` |
38| Main results exist but referee-anticipating checks are missing or fragile| `restud-robustness` |
39| Tables are oversized / footnote-bloated; figures do not carry the result | `restud-tables-figures` |
40| Prose is bloated; abstract over length; contribution buried | `restud-writing-style` |
41| Preparing the data/code deposit or auditing reproducibility | `restud-replication-package` |
42| Want to anticipate who referees and what they will demand | `restud-referee-strategy` |
43| Final preflight before clicking submit (format, length, anonymity) | `restud-submission` |
44| A referee report / R&R arrived and a response letter is needed | `restud-rebuttal` |
45
46## Default Sequence
47
48For a typical REStud-track manuscript, prefer this order:
49
501. `restud-topic-selection` — fix the one-sentence original contribution *before* anything else
512. `restud-literature-positioning` — locate the contribution against the closest 3–5 papers
523. `restud-identification` — for empirical papers, stress-test the design; if it fails here, no later skill saves the paper
534. `restud-theory-model` — for theory papers (or empirical papers with a model), build the model and route proofs to the online appendix
545. `restud-robustness` — anticipate the checks the demanding median REStud referee will require
556. `restud-tables-figures` — finalize exhibits so each one carries a result
567. `restud-writing-style` — only now polish prose, abstract, and introduction
578. `restud-replication-package` — assemble the deposit while results are fresh in code
589. `restud-referee-strategy` — map the likely referee pool and pre-empt objections
5910. `restud-submission` — final preflight: length, anonymity, format, files
6011. `restud-rebuttal` — after review, revise the manuscript first, then write the letter
61
62> `restud-identification` and `restud-theory-model` are **parallel branches**: empirical papers lean on the first, theory papers on the second, and many REStud papers (theory-with-empirics) need both. `restud-writing-style` is a **late polish** — do not run it before the contribution and design are stable.
63
64## Decision Cues
65
66If the user says...
67
68- *"I have data but no story"* → `restud-topic-selection`
69- *"My closest paper is in QJE 2022 and I don't know what I add"* → `restud-literature-positioning`
70- *"My DiD has staggered treatment and TWFE"* → `restud-identification`
71- *"My model has a proposition but no proof section"* → `restud-theory-model`
72- *"A referee will say the result is driven by X"* → `restud-robustness`
73- *"My table 3 has 14 columns"* → `restud-tables-figures`
74- *"My intro is 5 pages and buries the contribution"* → `restud-writing-style`
75- *"I got a conditional accept; I need the data deposit"* → `restud-replication-package`
76- *"Who is going to referee this and what will they want?"* → `restud-referee-strategy`
77- *"I'm submitting tomorrow"* → `restud-submission`
78- *"I got an R&R with three reports"* → `restud-rebuttal`
79
80## Differences vs. Other Top-5 Stacks
81
82REStud overlaps heavily with AER / QJE / JPE / Econometrica in standards, but its center of gravity differs:
83
84- vs **AER**: AER weights cross-subfield interest and policy salience; REStud equally welcomes a clean theoretical or methodological contribution with no policy hook, and is famously *friendly to young scholars* — the **REStud Tour / May Meetings** (annual since 1989) showcase graduating PhD job-market work.
85- vs **Econometrica**: Econometrica tolerates very heavy formal machinery as the contribution itself; REStud wants the economics payoff of the theory to be legible.
86- vs **JPE**: JPE has a price-theory / Chicago tilt; REStud is field-agnostic and European-rooted.
87
88If the paper is finance-specific (JF / JFE / RFS) or theory so abstract it is really a math paper, a different stack fits better.
89
90## Anti-Patterns
91
92- Polishing prose (`restud-writing-style`) before the identification or model is stable
93- Treating `restud-theory-model` as optional for an empirical paper that has a model — REStud referees check that the model's assumptions map to the empirics
94- Assembling the replication package only after acceptance — REStud's **Data Editor (Miklós Koren) runs an AEA DCAS reproducibility check before publication** (Zenodo deposit), so it is part of the production timeline, not an afterthought
95- Writing the rebuttal against the old draft instead of the revised manuscript
96- Skipping `restud-referee-strategy` because "the design is obviously fine" — REStud referees are demanding and develop strong papers across rounds
97
98## Handoff Contract
99
100Whenever this skill is invoked, end with:
101
102```text
103NEXT SKILL: <restud-skill-name>
104REASON: <one sentence>
105INPUTS NEEDED: <artifacts the next skill needs>
106```
107
108---
109
110**Source:** [`brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills`](https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills) → `Review-of-Economic-Studies-Skills/skills/restud-workflow/SKILL.md`